4 ms·

I really don't understand what would make someone say that Julia is lispy. People say that about R as well, but I don't see that either. To me, lisp is many th

by epgui 3y ago

I really don't understand what would make someone say that Julia is lispy. People say that about R as well, but I don't see that either. To me, lisp is many things, but the first thing it is is s-expressions. Most/many languages have macros. Lisp is just particularly good at those...

klyrs 3y ago
I didn't interpret OC as calling Julia lispy, as much as saying that Julia is matched to SBCL's interactive machine code generation and inspection. I don't have a dog in that particular fight; I've barely touched either language. Except, macros. I have never seen macro wizardry come anywhere near SBCL without homoiconicity. edit: pre-coffee reading comprehension, apparently. The word lispy is _right there_ in OC.
- chrsig 3y ago
  To clarify, I was trying to say that both - the julia runtime does a good job competing with sbcl with regard to interactive code generation. I'm not familiar enough with sbcl (or julia, really) to rank one over the other -- but from what I have seen, they're in the same ballpark. - julia feels like a lisp to me, due to many features of the language and how much it emphasizes repl based development. I can respect that others may not feel the same -- it's a subjective matter. I'm not heavily invested in either -- I just think they're both nifty.
dlopezjr 3y ago
Julia[0] shares features with Dylan[1] which was an attempt at designing a Lisp-like language without s-expressions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language)#Language_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language)#L... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_(programming_language) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_(programming_language)
Archit3ch 3y ago
From the Julia side, Common Lisp [0] feels like writing Julia. Both the code itself and the development experience. [0] https://youtu.be/y5Rn41fPIuQ https://youtu.be/y5Rn41fPIuQ

by epgui 3y ago

klyrs 3y ago

I didn't interpret OC as calling Julia lispy, as much as saying that Julia is matched to SBCL's interactive machine code generation and inspection. I don't have a dog in that particular fight; I've barely touched either language. Except, macros. I have never seen macro wizardry come anywhere near SBCL without homoiconicity. edit: pre-coffee reading comprehension, apparently. The word lispy is _right there_ in OC.

chrsig 3y ago
To clarify, I was trying to say that both - the julia runtime does a good job competing with sbcl with regard to interactive code generation. I'm not familiar enough with sbcl (or julia, really) to rank one over the other -- but from what I have seen, they're in the same ballpark. - julia feels like a lisp to me, due to many features of the language and how much it emphasizes repl based development. I can respect that others may not feel the same -- it's a subjective matter. I'm not heavily invested in either -- I just think they're both nifty.

dlopezjr 3y ago

Julia[0] shares features with Dylan[1] which was an attempt at designing a Lisp-like language without s-expressions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language)#Language_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language)#L... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_(programming_language) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_(programming_language)

Archit3ch 3y ago

From the Julia side, Common Lisp [0] feels like writing Julia. Both the code itself and the development experience. [0] https://youtu.be/y5Rn41fPIuQ https://youtu.be/y5Rn41fPIuQ